A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

Matthew J. Ramsay,1 Nelson Salisbury,1 and Suzi Surbey1 1 Seattle Urban Nature Project, 5218 University Way NE Seattle WA USA 98105 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract The city of Seattle, WA has ~8,000 acres of public time that the distribution and degree of invasion of land. Invasive alien plant species are present in 94% invasive species has been quantified and mapped in of these urban natural areas and 20% of the city’s Seattle. forested areas are highly invaded by a suite of Currently these data are used to prioritize invasive species. Four city departments and restoration efforts using information about the numerous local non-profits and neighborhood urban forest and invasive alien species’ extents. We groups are working to actively restore these areas. present our findings about the current range of How can we adopt a citywide approach to planning conditions for key habitat types with regard to restoration work in a manner which targets invasive species richness and invasive species cover. This species removal efforts efficiently, connects patches information can be used to evaluate relative site of valuable habitat, facilitates coordination among quality and to define reference conditions within the stakeholder groups and provides monitoring tools to urban context. measure the efficacy of all this collective effort? As longitudinal data become available, The Seattle Urban Nature Project systematic monitoring of invasive species and urban completed a comprehensive inventory of habitats on ecosystem dynamics can further inform restoration public land in Seattle. The resulting GIS database efforts. includes 33 habitat types, their acreage, plant species and cover estimates. This is the first time Key Words: GIS, urban forest restoration, habitat that each habitat’s spatial extent has been mapping, invasive species. quantified and mapped citywide. It is also the first

Introduction current data set of habitats on public lands. As The Seattle Urban Nature Project set out in examples, it provides specific findings about the range 1998 to map all the habitats on public land in Seattle in of habitat conditions in terms of native species richness order to monitor their condition over time and provide and alien invasive species cover at various relevant this valuable information to city agencies, community scales. Future analyses could examine a number of groups, and local non-profit groups involved in other measures of habitat quality based on this data set restoration, acquisition, and conservation of natural such as, habitat structural diversity and native species areas within the city. No other single repository exists diversity within parks. This information can form the of such comprehensive habitat data in Seattle and it is basis of comparisons between parcels. Reference sites unique because it spans administrative boundaries. that represent the best quality habitat in terms of the During the first phase of this project data collection and above parameters that are derived from within the GIS database design and editing were the main focus. existing urban context can assist in setting realistic Now in the second phase of this project the resulting performance standards for urban restoration and form data is being applied to prioritize, evaluate and monitor the baseline for future monitoring of restored habitats. urban restoration and management efforts conducted by Finally, we present an example of how this data is various stakeholders. Restoration activities are being applied to the first steps of planning urban forest conducted by a multitude of groups throughout the city restoration using information about invasive alien and it appears that investment in stewardship of these species coupled with forest type. This analytical lands will remain high in future years as population approach helps to prioritize sites for restoration since pressures increase. Therefore, it seems timely to annual resources for restoration are limited and the city establish some baseline conditions that date to the has a relatively large public land base to manage (7,944 1999-2000 survey through detailed data analysis and to acres (3,215 ha). Future analyses derived from this data put the dataset in service to the various entities set will likely incorporate both the habitat quality planning and conducting restoration in the city. This parameters such as species richness, species diversity article presents examples of the kinds of analyses which and structural diversity, along with patch size and are possible with the Seattle Urban Nature Project’s proximity, with the information about invasive species

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 1 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring. to arrive at a very thorough and objective method for Additional attributes about each polygon were prioritizing habitat restoration planning. collected on site. Percent cover of each plant species was visually estimated for the entire polygon area using Methods an eight cover-class system. Each species’ vertical Inventory and Mapping of Habitats on Public location in the forest canopy was also noted. The Land in Seattle 1999-2000 presence of site features such as snags, exceptionally The process of inventorying habitats on large trees, gully erosion, or wet seeps was noted for Seattle’s public lands began with the development of each polygon. the habitat classification system and accompanying Polygon attribute data was entered into an dichotomous key. The classification system is well Access relational database for use with an ArcGIS documented in the Seattle Parks and Recreation’s geodatabase and polygon boundaries were digitized Urban Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan, (Miller, from hardcopy maps of hand-drawn polygons. This 1994). It follows the conventions for land cover process was completed in 1999 and an atlas of maps of classifications set forth by the Washington State Gap habitats on public land in Seattle was published in Analysis and the Interagency Committee for Outdoor 2000. Digital copies of the complete GIS data and Recreation (IAC), but goes further to define some accompanying database were released in 2002. Both habitat types that are unique to Seattle’s urban are available to city agencies and the general public environment (IAC, 1993 WDFW, 1998). Habitats were through the Seattle Urban Nature Project. evaluated only on public land, which included city parks, right-of-ways, schools, etc. Public land was Data Analysis 2004 identified using King County’s GIS parcel layer data. Habitats, Parks, or particular polygons with Next, color orthophotos at a scale of 1:2400 (1 the greatest priority for future restoration efforts were inch = 200 ft or 2.5 cm = 61 m) were examined for identified using queries and calculations in Access, obvious boundaries between habitats created by ArcGIS, and Excel (Microsoft ® Office Access 2003, changes in vegetation structure, such as where Excel 2003 and ESRI® ArcGIS 8.3). Initial queries pavement meets field or field meets forest. Staff quantified the acreage of each habitat type on a city- ecologists further refined polygon boundaries during wide and park-wide basis. The GIS data displayed the detailed site surveys between January 1999 and August spatial extent and distribution of patches of select 2000. Discrete areas of homogeneous habitat were habitat types or particular species’ distributions. considered a single polygon. The minimum mapping Additional queries elucidated the range of conditions unit used for upland terrestrial habitats was 0.5 acre found within habitats in terms of levels of invasive (0.2 ha), but wetland habitats were mapped regardless species cover and native species richness. of their size. Wetland boundaries were mapped using In order to assist planning of the city’s urban only surface hydrology and evidence of obligate forest management plan, the proportion and extent of wetland plants, not using jurisdictional delineation invasive species cover was determined for each forested criteria. Each polygon was assigned a unique habitat type. 33 different exotic invasive plant species identification number, a designated habitat type and, in were considered in this analysis (Table 1). These the case of forested habitats, an average forest size- species were selected based on county and state class based on the tree’s average diameter at breast noxious weed lists as well as professional judgment of height. species that present some degree of management concern.

Table 1. Species classified as alien invasive species during analysis to determine levels of alien invasive species found in forested habitats. An asterisk indicates that the species is either regulated, or recommended for control by county or state noxious weed laws. Achillea millefolium *Cytisus scoparius *Myriophyllum spicatum Populus alba Alisma plantago-aquatica Daphne laureola *Nymphaea odorata Prunus laurocerasus Arctium sp. *Daucus carota *Phalaris arundinacea Ranunculus repens Bambusa sp. Dipsacus sylvestris Plantago lanceolata Rubus discolor Bellis perennis *Geranium robertianum Plantago major Rubus lacinatus *Cirsium arvense *Hedera helix Polygonum lapathifolium Solanum dulcamara *Cirsium vulgare *Hypericum perforatum *Polygonum cuspidatum *Ulex europaeus Clematis vitalba Hypochaeris radicata *Polygonum sachalinense Verbascum thapsus *Conium maculatum Ilex aquifolium *Convolvulus arvensis Lamium purpureum Crataegus monogyna *Lythrum salicaria

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 2 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

The midpoint value for each cover-class was that was invaded. Next each polygon was classified multiplied by the polygon acreage for each invasive into one of six categories using threshold values of species then summed within each polygon in order to percent of area invaded (Table 2). Finally, the acreage calculate total acres of invasive species for each was summed according to this relative classification for polygon. This total was then divided by the polygon each habitat type. acreage in order to derive the percent of the polygon

Table 2. Threshold values of percent cover for all invasive species within each polygon of forested habitat and correlating category of relative level of invasive species used in analysis of forested habitats. Percent Cover Range (%) Relative Level of Invasive Species 0-10% Trace 11-30% Low 31-50% Moderate 51-80% Moderately High 81-100% High >100% Very High Results also be viewed in terms of five broad categories, Habitat Diversity and Quantity Forested, Open Canopy, Developed Landscape, As a result of the 1999-2000 survey of habitats Wetland or Other. Results of analyses that follow on public lands in Seattle 33 different habitat types reference this list of habitats at various levels of have been identified, their acreage quantified, and their classification (Table 3). spatial distribution mapped. These 33 habitat types can

Table 3. Habitat classifications used during 1999-2000 survey of public lands in Seattle 7 Forested Types 9 Wetland Types Deciduous Forest Lacustrine Conifer Forest Palustrine Forested Wetland Conifer Deciduous Mixed Forest Palustrine Emergent Wetland Broadleaf Evergreen Forest Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Deciduous Broadleaf Evergreen Mixed Forest Palustrine Open Water Conifer Broadleaf Evergreen Mixed Forest Palustrine Aquatic Bed Riparian Forest Riverine Unconsolidated Substrate Riverine Consolidated Substrate 7 Open Canopy Types Riverine Tidal Shrubland Tree Savannah 8 Developed Types Shrub Savannah Light Development Grassland Medium Development Landscaped Tree Savannah Heavy Development Beach and Dune Landscaped Shrubland Sparsely Vegetated Habitat Landscaped Forest Landscaped Grassland 2 Other Types Herbaceous Row Crop Rock and Talus Orchard or Vineyard Cliff Of the 7,944 acres (3,215 ha) of habitat on shows the acreage of each habitat type. Figure 3 shows public land, 54% was comprised of just three habitat an example of habitat polygons mapped for an types, 24% Deciduous Forest (1893 ac, 766 ha), 17% individual city park (visit www.seattleurbannature.org Heavy Development (1366 ac, 553 ha), and 13% to view maps in PDF format). Landscaped Grassland (1016 ac, 411 ha). Figure 2

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 3 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

Acres According to Habitat Type

5 9 8 2000 1 1800

1600 6 6 3 1400 1

6 1200 1 0 1 1000 Acres 800 7 1 6 600 2 7 7 6 3 3 3 2 1 6 400 3 9 7 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 8 9 2 1 3 3 1 0 2 0 200 1 8 8 5 9 7 4 9 6 5 4 4 3 7 4 2 2 0 4 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 6 2 1 0 0

t t d t t d t h e t d t h d h d d d t d r t t p t e t ff e l s d e s n n s s n s a n n n n a n a n e n s n e s s o s n ta li t a u r t re e a re re a re n ri e a e n a n a a re t re re r re u i ra id l a ra o m l o o l o n t m l m n tl n tl B l o tla a o o C o b C t T a y t p s b s s p e a e ic b W D a s T e s F o s F F u F va u p s va v t u F e F F w F d H b e in b s l ra d d r r c lo ra lo W a W a r d W n n n o d n u in d u u e e e h fe a a e e a u h e t e e a e a d S r n V S o v G p x S i S L v G v S b S d q S x n p e ri R x te e a r u e a i n e e e e u b te A d i e r a s i h a d iv k o d d D d c M o e D D e r u s e M O g p u M c t te c d te i e s C r t r h r e e rg e r i o a e R o r a c y p d s T h T -S h r in p n e n e R e n e g a R a e v a n u m S o r a e ri v c e B e lid h lid D a c a o d iu ig b F t sc re m t E a e V o c o e s u e d L ru s E s f b r s r s H d L id p e c e lu d rg lu r rg ly n O n n c a S in a n e e a a e e e o a e c M tr P a v in le H v s co L s e s L E tr P d E r n C D d in u f s a f a e r n r l a u o a p U n fe a st a l r S e ri i L P le a B le n n lu d P d ri ve o a a a e i C P ro ro iv R B B R s r u e o if u n id o c C e D Habitat Type

Acres

Figure 2. Total acres of each of 33 habitat types found on public land in Seattle during the 1999-2000 survey by Seattle Urban Nature Project. Total mapped area equals 7,944 ac, (3,215 ha). Acreage was derived by ArcGIS following digitizing of hand-drawn polygons.

Figure 3. An example of a map showing habitats in a single park in northwest Seattle, Carkeek Park. The map shows polygons classified by habitat type, habitat classifications in the legend, and inset maps showing cover of 5 invasive species within polygons.

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 4 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

Results plant species found in each habitat type with at least Range of Conditions of Key Habitat Types one native species present was 40 and these habitats Native Plant Species Richness ranged from having less than 10 to more than 90 native Native species richness for each habitat type is species. displayed in Figure 4. The average number of native

Native Species Richness by Habitat Type

3 100 9

90 1 9 8 7 80 0 7 8 6 6 6 5 4 6 6 0 70 6 4 60 5 1 0 5 5 9 7 4 4 2 1 0 50 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 0 40 3 3 7 2 30 1 1 2 2 6 20 1 9 8 8 7 10 4 2 2

Number of Native Species Species Native of Number 0 t t t t l t t t d d t t t d n h t s s e d d h s h d r ff p d te t s a e s s s d n s s n n e a n e e t n n a e a n te li o r ta u d d n e re re n a n re re e a n e r r ra a a n r n a C r a ra i l e i u r o o la l la o m l m n m o o t l l n o n l a C y t b a B T o F t b t o p s p a p F F s b t a F a s W e s a T c D F F e ru e F F o s lo v o b ru e v v s w in b H ti e d s d r W h W d n l ra e a l d n u h W a d a ra n o u d a in n u e fe e a e v S e e e S t S e S e R V S d n u r a o x i d S b p ri v G e v ix re S n ix G p r te a q e u i n e u a a e d e e g d d e e M b O s o d k iv h d M o t r c p D e D re D M r te e g re u u d te ta c A R c i C s h s i t p y n e a p r T n r e o r a e o e a c s re -S d R h v T m e v d a e e h in e a d g R n e e u o n g ca a u e E li c d e S r c h li e ri B D o F b a i s e i r f o s m e r t a c o V t u ru L L d d g a s d E p rg s rb r s s id e c n H e r e n n e a e lu O n ly lu c in S a M e l o a c v a e o e a e tr L v d c L in s P H C s P D s e E a n tr d E r u in f ro s n f e a r l tr a U lu a a in p ife a s le B e a L le r S n P u d in d e l a r P a iv o a o e o C P r iv r R B R B s r u fe o i u n d o ci C e D Habitat Type

Species Richness

Figure 4. Total native plant species richness according to habitat type. Totals reflect the number of unique species found among all units each particular habitat type based on a 1999-2000 survey.

Among natural areas and parks with at least 14 native species per park or natural area. The 20 most one native plant species present, native species richness species rich parks or natural areas (out of 237) are per natural area or park ranged from as little as 1 native shown in Table 4 along with their size. species per park to greater than 80, with an average of

Table 4. Native plant species richness according to parks Rank Parkname Acres Hectares Native Species Richness 1 University of Washington 545 221 87 2 Carkeek Park 190 77 73 3 Discovery Park 651 263 66 4 Thornton Creek Greenspace 61 25 64 5 Ravenna Park 61 25 61 6 Schmitz Park 62 25 59 7 West Duwamish Greenbelt 436 176 59 8 Burke-Gilman Trail 80 32 58 9 Jackson Park Golf course 151 61 56 10 Lincoln Park 125 50 54 11 Kubota Gardens Park 35 14 48 12 Fauntleroy Park 39 16 47 13 Camp Long 67 27 46 14 Washington Park Arboretum 292 118 45 15 Westcrest Park 126 51 44

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 5 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

Table 4. Continued. 16 Duwamish Head Greenbelt 138 56 44 17 Golden Gardens Park 74 30 44 18 East Duwamish Greenbelt 396 160 42 19 Puget Creek Natural Area 39 16 41 20 Seward Park 210 85 41

2,997 out of 4,126 polygons or 73 % of found in a single polygon was 36. The 10 polygons polygons had at least one native species present. The with the greatest number of native species are shown in average number of native species found among these Table 5 along with their detailed habitat type, size and polygons was 7 and average polygon size was 1.8 acres associated park name. (0.7 hectare). The greatest number of native species

Table 5. List of the 10 polygons with the greatest number of native plant species out of 4,127 polygons. The park’s name, polygon’s size, and polygon’s habitat type is shown on the appropriate row. Native Species Rank Parkname Poly_ID Habitat Acres Hectares Richness Kubota Gardens Light 1 Park kugapk_003-01 Development 15.44 6.25 36

Conifer Forest 20- 2 Schmitz Park schmpk_014-00 30" Diameter 5.12 2.07 33

Riparian Forest 3 Carkeek Park carkpk_087-00 15-20" Diameter 1.30 0.52 32

Conifer Deciduous Mixed Forest 20- 4 Carkeek Park carkpk_056-10 & 01 30" Diameter 18.81 0.04 32

Conifer Deciduous Mixed Forest 20- 5 Carkeek Park carkpk_040-01 30" Diameter 6.87 2.78 31

Conifer Deciduous Mixed Forest 15- 6 Lincoln Park lincpk_041-00 20" Diameter 23.90 9.67 30

Conifer Forest 15- 7 Fauntleroy Park faunpk_023-00 20" Diameter 3.49 1.41 28

Duwamish Head Deciduous Forest 8 Greenbelt duhegs_044-02 5-15" Diameter 3.76 1.52 28

North Beach Deciduous Forest 9 Greenspace nobegs_001-05 & 02 15-20" Diameter 2.40 0.83 27

North Beach Deciduous Forest 10 Greenspace nobegs_001-03 15-20" Diameter 0.08 0.03 27

Invasive Species Extents threat posed among species; one also needs to consider Acreage of each alien invasive species was their pattern of distribution. Each habitat type was also calculated on a citywide basis to identify which species evaluated in terms of its total amount of acres of alien were the greatest threats in terms of absolute extent. invasive species. The ten habitat types with the greatest The ten species covering the greatest number of acres amount of acres are displayed in Figure 6. are displayed in Figure 5. Total citywide acreage is only one consideration when evaluating the relative

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 6 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

Acres of alien invasive species

1200

0 2 0 1 1000

800 8 1 7

600 Acres of cover 400

200 8 1 1 5 7 3 3 0 7 6 6 1 5 0 5 3 2 0

. r ix s m a is s a a p lo l iu u lb s u e n p o e r li a n s c y s c h a o it e ra a g is a p if v v e in o m d r o u r c d n u e c q is a o n o s d s a t s r n u e s a u u ru m o b H u x m l a a s g u s le e u l u ly R ti I l lv s is g o y C o u r e P v n la a C n u a t o r h ra C P P C Species name

Citywide acreage

Figure 5. The ten alien invasive species with the greatest total number of acres in Seattle’s public lands based on a 1999-2000 survey by Seattle Urban Nature Project.

Acres of Invasive Species by Habitat Type

1400 0 6 1 1200 1

1000

800

600 Acres of Cover of Acres 6 400 0 3

0 5 9 1 3 200 1 3 9 0 6 8 1 2 2 4 4 3 3 0

t d t t h t d d t t s n s s a s n n s n re re re n re re e o la o o n o tla tla o m b a e e p F ru F v F F s h d r F a d W W d lo u S e ife e b d e ve o ix n S p ix u o e a ru te e id M re c h s M D c s C s re n y e u T d -S o e v D o n b a u a ru F re e id L c e rg H c S n e e tri v D e s r n lu f E tri a a ife s le n lu P d o a a C P ro s B u o u id c e D Habitat Type

Acres of Invasive Species

Figure 6. The ten habitats with the greatest number of acres of alien invasive species in Seattle’s public lands based on a 1999-2000 survey by Seattle Urban Nature Project.

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 7 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

Since habitats are not equal in size, the number per habitat type. The ten habitat types with the greatest of acres of alien invasive species was divided by habitat percentage of area invaded by alien invasive species are acreage to arrive at the percent of each habitat that is shown in Figure 7. (Refer to figure 2 for habitat invaded, rather than absolute acres of invasive species acreage.)

Percent of Habitat Invaded

90 3 8 80

2 7

70 6 6 2 1 6 6 60

1 5 50 6 4 5 4 3 4 0 4

Percent 40

30

20

10

0 Shrubland Conifer Tree Deciduous Deciduous Palustrine Palustrine Landscaped Conifer Conifer Broadleaf Savannah Broadleaf Forest Forested Scrub-Shrub Shrubland Forest Deciduous Evergreen Evergreen Wetland Wetland Mixed Forest Mixed Forest Mixed Forest Habitat Type

Percent of Habitat Invaded

Figure 7. The ten habitats with the greatest percent of alien invasive species cover in Seattle’s public lands, based on a 1999-2000 survey by Seattle Urban Nature Project. (Refer to figure 2 for total habitat acreage)

Setting priorities for urban forest restoration species levels within polygons at a single 189 acre (76 Seven of the forested habitat types were evaluated in ha) park. From this presentation of data and its terms of their extent of alien invasive species. The total underlying analysis, polygons can now be prioritized acreage of each forested type is shown in Figure 8 in for restoration. Managers will use this information to terms of the proportion of area that is invaded to choose polygons with highly valued forest types which varying degrees, (ranging from “trace” to “very highly” are also invaded at low levels and invest a majority of invaded, and see Table 2 for definitions of these terms). their resources on these relatively feasible areas. 456 acres or 25% of the deciduous forest is very highly Managers can also handily target isolated invaded invaded, while another 478 acres or 25% have only polygons practicing containment strategies. trace levels of invasive species present. 43% of the Subsequent years and budgets will be assigned to areas conifer forest is invaded at the moderate level. Mixed that are more invaded and other forest types. Figures 9 coniferous/deciduous forest has low levels of invasive shows an example of the results of this analysis for one species in 45% of its area. park, but actually results pertain to all 7,944 acres Selections of individual polygons based on (3,215 ha), therefore, multi-year work plans for clearing their invasive cover classification and habitat type invasive species and replanting the urban forest and its could form the basis of a prioritization scheme for understory can be derived with a citywide perspective urban forest restoration. Figure 9 displays invasive using this approach.

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 8 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

Level of Invasive Species in Forested Habitats

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000 Acres 800

600

400

200

0 Conifer Deciduous Broadleaf Conifer Deciduous Deciduous Conifer Forest Broadleaf Evergreen Riparian Forest Broadleaf Forest Mixed Forest Evergreen Mixed Forest Evergreen Mixed Trace 133 49 27 1 2 3 2 Low 478 165 54 6 16 9 1 Moderate 289 35 137 9 6 0 5 Moderately High 348 60 36 14 8 6 High 175 16 27 4 1 3 0 Very High 456 45 36 13 0 6

Figure 8. The total acreage of each forested type in Seattle displayed in terms of the proportion of area that is invaded to varying degrees, ranging from “trace” to “very highly” invaded, see Table 2 for definitions of these terms. Data table at bottom shows acres of each classification within columns, which are 7 general forest types found in Seattle.

Figure 9. Invasive species levels within polygons at a single 189 acre (76 ha) park in northwest Seattle, Carkeek Park.

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 9 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

Discussion This was the first time that all public land, and sixth most abundant habitats (Figures 2 and 4). regardless of managing agency, was classified in terms Although this was not the objective of the study, and of habitat type. The classification system itself has lent further careful analysis could be conducted to a common language and framework to the discussion of determine species-area relationships in the urban habitat types and condition of public lands in Seattle. environment, it may suggest that small isolated areas Quantifying and mapping the spatial extent of could be valuable repositories of biodiversity in Seattle. habitats throughout the city has been a valuable The classification of forest types by their level contribution to considerations of habitat during city of alien invasive species cover is a useful first step to planning and management decisions. It is not too assign priority to urban forest restoration sites when surprising that deciduous forest, heavy development annual resources are limited. Managers can now use and landscaped grasslands (aka: lawn) dominate the this information and an understanding of the relative habitat types on public land when one considers the value of each forest type to select which areas will legacy of early timber harvest (that selected conifer receive restoration treatments each year. For example, species over deciduous species), urbanization, (that hypothetically, 456 acres of very highly invaded creates the impervious surfaces that characterize heavy deciduous forest may not be the best place to invest development), and the multiple uses of these resource limited resources since there are 478 acres of the same lands managed for humans (who use playfields and habitat type that have only low amounts of invasive lawns) as well as other wildlife. species and therefore might be more efficiently The fact that 33 different habitats exist in restored. Another hypothetical example would be that Seattle is a testament to the high level of habitat if conifer forest is a higher value forest, (due to wildlife diversity in this city. Future management efforts criteria, or ecosystem services such as storm water should utilize this information to increase proportions detention), then 80 acres which are only invaded at of habitats that are small, isolated, or desirable. trace or low levels could be the highest priority areas to Information about the range of conditions fully restore first. Clearly these decisions involve other among various habitats at the scale of a single polygon, variables, both social and ecological. However, such a park, or city-wide, forms the basis for evaluating sites comprehensive data, based on the 1999-2000 survey, is against some baseline standards. A site can now be a useful resource for planning urban forest restoration. evaluated in terms of where it fits relative to other similar habitats within the city, or in terms of citywide Next steps averages. For example, native species richness, or level There are a number of promising future of alien invasive species in a particular neighborhood applications of this approach to citywide inventory and restoration site that is conifer forest habitat can be monitoring. The first is the ability to monitor habitat compared to results presented herein. A conifer forest quality following restoration activities. In order to polygon would be considered better than average if it accomplish this Seattle Urban Nature Project is had more than 14 native species present since the range working on establishing repeatable, accurate methods of native species richness for conifer forest habitats of data collection for monitoring purposes in ranges from 1 to 33 species. Also if less than 43% of conjunction with city agencies and local non-profit the site was invaded by invasive alien species it would organizations. Secondly, the approach to prioritizing be in better condition than conifer forests citywide and restoration sites presented herein is relatively simple would be among the areas that are considered because it only shows one or two-variables under moderately invaded by the urban forest planning consideration at a time as an example of what could be framework. done. A logical next step would be to conduct the Species richness values reported here are analyses which combine multiple variables to arrive at notable because it appears that in the highly diverse, a site index of ecological quality to be used in setting fragmented, and managed urban environment that priorities for restoration. These two steps would be increased area does not necessarily result in greater extremely valuable as multiple parties are involved in species richness. At both the park scale (Table 4), and stewardship activites of 7,944 acres of public land and polygon scale (Table 5), area and native species their efforts might be more effectively coordinated to richness do not appear to be positively correlated. benefit the common urban public land resource. To Deciduous forest is the most abundant habitat type and facilitate this process Seattle Urban Nature Project also it appears to be the habitat type with the greatest aims to map the spatial location and track contact number of native species present, however the next two information for the multiple stakeholders involved in most native species-rich habitat types (conifer- restoration activites in Seattle. deciduous mixed forest and conifer forest) are the fifth

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 10 A Citywide Survey of Habitats on Public Land in Seattle, a tool for urban restoration planning and ecological monitoring.

Acknowledgements This summary and analysis would not be possible without the initial work of Gregg Miller, all past and present SUNP Board members, and 1999-2000 SUNP staff, Josh Wozniak, Katie Sauter, and Micki McNaughton as well as Terralogic GIS. Seattle Parks Urban Forester, Mark Mead developed the prioritization scheme for urban forest restoration using SUNP data and SUNP staff members, Suzi Surbey and Nelson Salisbury assisted extensively with all phases of data analysis.

Literature Cited Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation (IAC) 1993 Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat Diversity Classification Scheme. Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation, Olympia, WA.

Miller, G. 1994 Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation Urban Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan Seattle Parks and Recreation Department, Seattle, WA

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998 http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/gap/landcov.htm Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit University of Washington Seattle, WA

16th Int’l Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, 2004, Victoria, Canada 11